As if New Zealand hadn't played any semi-final, as if England & Japan hadn't played any pool game, as if C Pool had only 3 teams, as if Wales had begun the tournament on the last day, as if Hong Kong wasn't in Ireland at all...

sjbret wrote:Only 15 games among 30 counted for the World Rugby rankings : 2/6 on day 1, 2/6 on day 2, 3/6 on day 3, 3/6 on semis and 5/6 on finals !

What exactly is your point? Should games against much weaker teams count for the rankings?

I would propose a system were you simply lose 10 ranking points if you don't play a game that very year. Will balance the Women's ranking out without reducing the "numbers".

How to grow rugby worldwide?Look at the world ranking in July. Teams ranked 1-10 have to play one team from 11-20 (they don't play in a regular competition) away the next year. 11-20 play 21-30 away and so on. Yes, it really is that simple.

RugbyLiebe wrote:What exactly is your point? Should games against much weaker teams count for the rankings?

Serge wrote:I wasn’t satisfied enough by the official World Rugby’s ranking which presents according to me many qualities but which, and I regret it, only concerns a restricted number of countries.The ranking doesn’t take in account the level of the teams which is the main criterion I retain for every match because the World Rugby’s principle is simple : the winner gains some points, the loser loses them.It doesn’t take into consideration the games against the countries which aren't members of World Rugby, even when the tournament is organized by a World Rugby affiliated federation, nor does it the matches against the teams I called special (Nomads...), as well as those against ranked teams having a difference of more or less than 10 points in a 0 to 100 ranking.Finally, any introduction in the World Rugby’s rankings is arbitrarily fixed, no matter what the previous results of the countries are.

Calculation methodFor every international match, I've attributed since 1982 for women, points to every country as a sum of several elements.I mainly take into account the match level (generally the points average of the 2 teams before the match, with minima) and the kind of result (win, draw, defeat or forfeit).But I also count the match venue (at home according to the opponent from the continent or not, in an other country of its own continent, on neutral ground, in a country of the continent of its opponent, away according to the opponent), the number of scored points and the difference between the number of scored points and the number of scored points by the opponent.Finally, I add a bonus for WRC.There are a few exceptions in this method, in particular when countries play A, B , Emerging, Amateur, Junior, Student, Army, Police or Services teams, even provinces or clubs in official competitions.In an official competition too, results of A, B, Emerging or Juniors teams can make the said country points marginally move, with a specific calculation.Finally, matches results with « special » teams (Nomads, Caribbean Select) are counted and these teams classified apart.The points number after the match is equal to the sum of 10% of the match points and 90 % of the points number before the match (possibly 20 % and 80 % for women's teams playing very few or in the World Cup). This method allows to take less into account surprises and requires regularity in performance to progress. Besides, it favors countries the level of which improves by often playing to the detriment of those who play few, the number moreover decreasing in 2% each year.

To present my rankings on October 2009, I worked more than 2 years to compile men's data and one year to compile women's data from all the important sites (thanks to them). And also to realize multiple tests which allowed me to validate the method.

The women’s rankings differ from the men’s in the way that the starting ranking points are calculated:

*The first official women’s full international match was played in 1987 and since then the number of women’s matches is considerably fewer than the number of men’s matches.*There are a number of women’s teams who do not play regular matches.*As a result of the relatively small number of matches compared to the men’s and the discrepancies in the number of matches played by different Unions the effect that one result will have on the rankings could unfairly skew the result.*To combat this effect, it has been decided to start all teams out on 80 ranking points (an arbitrarily chosen figure which does not have any bearing on the subsequent results of the rankings) in 1987, then for each year between 1987 and the year that an individual Union played their first women’s full international match 2 points are deducted from their total.*This deduction occurs up until 2007, so if a team plays their first ever full international after 2007 then they will begin with 40 ranking points.

This is not totally true. According to our glorious researches, the 2-points-deduction went up until 2012

2008: Brazil and Uzbekistan started from 38.002009: Barbados, S.V.&Grenadines from 36.002010: Bahamas 34.002011: Switzerland 32.002012: Philippines 30.002013: Czech Republic 30.002014: no new entry2015: no new entry2016: no new entry

Just in 2017, with the inclusion of Zimbabwe, Namibia and Botswana, they restored the entry at 40.00 points

In the last men's ranking ten nations have been penalized by six points cause they have not played any test match in the last two years (at least this is the most probable explanation). Maybe next monday, with the first women's ranking of 2018, we will see some revolution also in this ranking. Even if probably they use different criteria for men and women

I tried to summarise the both first years of World Rugby official rankings.Firstly, I'ld want to say and repeat that WR rankings have a main quality : they exist. And we waited them since a too long time !And if we aren't satisfied by the method, it's always possible to create another ranking as in Serge's archives.http://les-archives-de-serge.over-blog. ... women.html

Since february 2016, 140 XV women's games have been recorded by WR with a WR number (from 23073 to 25787).If we eliminate the both Barbarians games (Vs Munster & British Army) and the 3 matches with a single country (Czechia Vs Brown University, Wales Vs British Army & Australia Vs Auckland), we have 135 games between 2 countries, including a total of 24 playing countries.

In the 135 games, 77 (57 %) were used for the rankings (among which 8 couldn't according to the method).And 58 (43 %) were not (among which 7 could).

If a team doesn't play any match in two years, they shouldn't be in any serious world rankings.

How to grow rugby worldwide?Look at the world ranking in July. Teams ranked 1-10 have to play one team from 11-20 (they don't play in a regular competition) away the next year. 11-20 play 21-30 away and so on. Yes, it really is that simple.

If a team doesn't play any match in two years, they shouldn't be in any serious world rankings.

How the hell is Botswana in the top 25, yet they don't honour fixtures? They barely have a 7s team turning up with 10 players, instead of the required 13, so how on earth did they even make an xvs team?

Neptune wrote:How the hell is Botswana in the top 25, yet they don't honour fixtures? They barely have a 7s team turning up with 10 players, instead of the required 13, so how on earth did they even make an xvs team?

You need to work on your reading skills. They are not in the top 25. This is my ranking. They are one of just 25 women's national teams who played 15s internationals in the last two years. So they are 25th out of 25. What an achievement.

How to grow rugby worldwide?Look at the world ranking in July. Teams ranked 1-10 have to play one team from 11-20 (they don't play in a regular competition) away the next year. 11-20 play 21-30 away and so on. Yes, it really is that simple.

If a team doesn't play any match in two years, they shouldn't be in any serious world rankings.

They barely have a 7s team turning up with 10 players, instead of the required 13, so how on earth did they even make an xvs team?

What nonsense you write. Where did you get that information from? Botswana has always pitched up to RA 7s tournaments with the required TWELVE players - RA does not allow teams to have 13 players. They have played Namibia, Zambia and Zimbabwe in 15 aside international matches and had the required 22/23 players each time. You should stop making up stuff and posting it!

A comparison between end of 2017 and end of 2018 rankings (no more TM are fixed for this year).In blue the positions and points gained, in red the lost ones.There were few changes: Italy overcame Wales, Spain overcame Ireland. In an hypothetical European Championship it would be a great fight between these four nations for the bronze medal, with England and France running for the gold.The biggest loss and the biggest earning came not casually from two neighbor countries: Samoa (-3.00) and Fiji (+3.65). I think the fijians, currently 24th, could easily enter in the Top15 and maybe even in the Top10, with enough games to play

Shame on Portugal being in this ranking. How many years haven't they played a single game now? Has Samoa actually played a game this year or was it a deduction for being inactive?Apart from that: should any other team being added to my 25 active national teams ranking or even one to be scrapped?

How to grow rugby worldwide?Look at the world ranking in July. Teams ranked 1-10 have to play one team from 11-20 (they don't play in a regular competition) away the next year. 11-20 play 21-30 away and so on. Yes, it really is that simple.